DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Midnight Meat Train: Unrated, The (US - BD RA)

Gabe is keeping his eye's peeled for ex-soccer players on the subway...

Feature

Down and out urban photographer Leon (Bradley Cooper) is inspired and pushed to capture the darkest reality of the city. After photographing and ultimately stopping the harassment of a young model, Leon discovers that the model was murdered briefly after their encounter. In double checking his photographs Leon decides to pursue a hunch, and looks into the personal life of a large, silent behemoth carrying a brief case (Vinnie Jones). Leon’s investigation doesn’t lead him places anyone in their right mind would ever want to go.

Midnight Meat Train comes with three hard to match expectations. First off, it’s the first Clive Barker theatrical adaptation since the writer directed snore-fest Lord of Illusions, way back in 1995. Add to that Japanese action director Ryuhei Kitamura’s ( Versus, Azumi, Godzilla: Final War) making his Hollywood debut. The third, and possibly most unobtainable level of expectation, is the title, which after drawing guffaws from teaser trailer showings, embarrassed Lionsgate enough to make them effectively bury the film.

Lionsgate really shoved their tail between their legs on this one, but was not lacking in creative ways to keep the film from a mainstream audience. First they pushed back the initially announced release date, though not for reasons of unfinished product. Then they released the film to less than one hundred theatres. This wasn’t a rare move, but the less than one hundred theatres selected were of the second run variety, also known as ‘dollar’ or ‘cheap’ theatres. On top of this, which automatically set the film up for a minimal box office take for price alone, the majority of fans were able to first see the film through Lionsgate’s free On-Demand cable service Fearnet. Though some small budget horror films have been sold straight to the Sci-Fi network in the past, this particular treatment of a film (a $15 million film specifically) is quite novel, and bizarrely notable.

But you're probably here to hear if the flick’s any good. The short story is that it's good, but it's not particularly original. Basically, if I’m breaking it down for the film buffs out there, I’d call Meat Train a mix of Argento’s Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Gary Sherman’s under-appreciated Raw Meat (aka Death Line), and Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby, as filtered through the prisms of both Barker’s and Kitamura’s typical work. I’m unfamiliar with the original story, so I’m not sure what was added or subtracted by screenwriter Jeff Buhler, but this is a somewhat middling story. The characters are inescapably artificial, and their motivations are largely stereotypical for the genre. The ultimate familiarity is the film’s weakest element, but I’m personally enough of a fanboy to enjoy the whole recognition process. The similarities with various Argento features (including his greatly Weegee inspired half of Two Evil Eyes) were actually quite satisfying, as Argento himself hasn’t made a satisfying Giallo since The Stendhal Syndrome, though not for lack of trying.

The mix of Kitamura and Barker was the intriguing part of the equation for many fans, including me. One ingredient bereft of the other would be much less interesting. Kitamura control balances Barker’s tendency to take his stories too seriously, and Barker’s source material keeps Kitamura from tumbling overboard. We’re all adults here, so let’s not pussy foot around the facts—Kitamura makes junk food movies. He takes his favourite elements from more successful directors and ‘cools them up’. The good news for the fans is that he’s grown steadily throughout his very brief career (the Japanese film industry demands at least a few films per year out of their better directors). And in growing Kitamura has made his first real horror film. By the final act the Sam Raimi and John Woo worshiping director we’ve come to know and love rears his head, in a way Barker could’ve never manage on his own. Yet the left field nature of the final act is pure Clive. It’s the best and worst of both worlds.

Video

No matter what we say critically about the depth of Kitamura’s filmmaking, most of us have to admit that his stuff looks fantastic on the surface. It’s no surprise that a slight increase in budget would make for an even more beautiful looking feature. Midnight Meat Train is a very slick film, with sharp foreground focus, tight edges, very specific lighting schemes, and just about zero natural lighting. Kitamura fulfils the stereotypes, but also takes the time to surprise us a bit. In hi-def the audience can appreciate the changes in image clarity and grain. Scenes taking place in the titular train or the station are steely blue, and unnaturally clean. Even the splattering black and red blood in these scenes looks like silk on screen. Outside night shots often revel in auburn hues, sharper contrast, and more grain, while daytime shots overrun with white glare, spiked with deep blacks, and poppy pastels.

Audio

Of course, you can’t have a total sensory overload without audio extremes, and audio extremes can never go wrong with DTS-HD Master Audio. The sound effects in this one aren’t quite as Raimi-fied as the silly bits found in Kitamura’s Anime inspired work, but the extreme nature of each ear-splitting splat, and each gut punching bone crunch should probably still make Mr. Evil Dead proud. Surround effects are fiercely impressive, and go great lengths in creating a larger canvas for what is ultimately a monetarily bereft production (comparatively speaking, of course). Directional spacing is usually spot-on, and the immersive effect of the mix is quite nice (check out the railcar three-sixty during the fight for a good time). The LFE channel belongs to the punches, kicks, hammer throws, and the electronica-meets-brass-band score. A very busy track indeed.

Extras

The extras begin with a great commentary featuring Barker and Kitamura. Barker’s commentaries are always good, but this is my first time listening to Kitamura share his thoughts on the filmmaking process in English (and pretty good English too). Ever the storyteller, Barker, who’s mostly in charge of the track’s pace and structure, saves his juicy behind the scenes information until the last act, but previews it constantly. Time constraints initially made me think I was going to have to watch the track in chunks, but I found myself listening to the entire thing without checking the clock. We still don’t get the full story behind the film’s mistreatment, but we get plenty of clues. It seems that Meat Train, along with Repo! The Genetic Opera, was the victim of a regime change at the studio (though this is of course only part of the story). Surprising to me is the lack of talk concerning Argento, Raw Meat, or the legends that I had assumed inspired the story. Perhaps Barker added these elements subconsciously, or perhaps I misread the images, because both commentators are sure to mention all the other homage they toss about.

‘Clive Barker: The Man Behind the Myth’ is a general look at the dude that wrote the story. Barker only spends about four minutes discussing Midnight Meat Train, or movies at all, before quickly moving on to his paintings, which are still relatively new to him. As a painter I’m impressed with the quantity of Barker’s output more than his skill, but some of the hundreds of pieces strewn across his studio are genuinely fantastic works of art. Barker’s dribbling descriptions of his art are pretty pretentious and fully over thought. The featurette runs a healthy fifteen minutes.

‘Mahogany’s Tale’ is five minutes plus concerned with all things Mahogany. Mahogany is the film’s killer, as played by the immortal Vinnie Jones. Apparently Barker and Kitamura were trying to create the next horror icon. They’ve come up short, but it’s not entirely easy to say why. The character’s costume and public image is in direct conflict with Jones’ on screen persona, which is kind of unintentionally amusing—sort of a 300lb Forest Gump.

‘Anatomy of a Murder Scene’ is a fluffy, ten minute look at the film’s best (if not most realistic) murder—the death of Ted Raimi and friends. Kitamura’s love of storyboard pre-production is not a surprise. Things end with a trailer, and trailers for other Lionsgate horror releases.

Overall

Cautious optimism ended up being the ideal manner in which to approach Midnight Meat Train, which is a good mix of the specific talents of its respected writer and energetic director, but not a great film. I happy I skipped the free On-Demand R-rated version, because based on the facts gathered from this commentary track, the cuts to maintain the rating were deep. There would be no reason to see a neutered version of such a bloody, violent, and just downright gooey film. Brutal and funny, though just as predictable and maudlin, Midnight Meat Train is mostly for Barker and Kitamura’s fans, but may transcend a few mainstream barriers.

*Note: The images on this page are not representative of the Blu-ray release.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Gillis wrote: I see the "Raw Meet" and "The Bird With The Crystal Plumage" references, but how on earth did you get "Rosemary's Baby?" Sorry, I missed this. The Rosemary's Baby aspect comes out of the fact that seemingly everyone is in on the evil conspiracy.

Anybody know if we got the R rated version in UK cinemas? It got an 18 certificate here, but will the upcmoing DVD have even more gore? I saw it when it was on limited release and can't wait to get it on DVD when it's released here on 10th March.

carniv4 wrote: bobsolo wrote: I love movies. I've seen thousands. Back in the early 90's (pre internet era for me) I once went through one of the paper movie guide books and marked every movie I could remember I had seen. It took weeks. I love movies. That said, Lord of Illusions is the only movie I have ever walked out of.

haha. i walked out on lotr: two towers. but that was mostly because of the chinese buffet i had prior to the film.

Well, there you go. This guy loves movies - a real lot, too, probably more than anybody here. He's seen thousands and spent weeks marking a movie book with little red dots years ago. He walked out of LORD OF ILLUSIONS so it must suck big time. Anyone who may like it is wrong (unless their movie book has more red dots in it).

bobsolo wrote: I love movies. I've seen thousands. Back in the early 90's (pre internet era for me) I once went through one of the paper movie guide books and marked every movie I could remember I had seen. It took weeks. I love movies. That said, Lord of Illusions is the only movie I have ever walked out of.

Well, there you go. This guy loves movies - a real lot, too, probably more than anybody here. He's seen thousands and spent weeks marking a movie book with little red dots years ago. He walked out of LORD OF ILLUSIONS so it must suck big time. Anyone who may like it is wrong (unless their movie book has more red dots in it).

this is a GREAT movie. i was fortunate enough to watch see it in theaters and i have a copy on DVD. it's so beautifully shot. it's just gorgeous. the acting is spot on. the "twist" is cool (yet head scrathing! lol) DEFINITELY worth buying/seeing.

I love movies. I've seen thousands. Back in the early 90's (pre internet era for me) I once went through one of the paper movie guide books and marked every movie I could remember I had seen. It took weeks. I love movies. That said, Lord of Illusions is the only movie I have ever walked out of.

horrorfan25 wrote: Gildia wrote: I watched this on demand on FEARnet and loved it. I would've paid to see it in theaters. I've been searching for a copy of this at all the stores where I live (Louisville, KY) and none of them have it. They either don't carry it, have only the DVD, or are sold out. I want to see the unrated cut badly, to see more of the fantastic gore. Seriously, if you are a gorehound like me, you'll love this film. The extras sound disappointing though. At least the commentary sounds good.

Gildia I saw a copy of the DVD and Blu-ray version of Midnight meat train at my local K-Mart. Did you try there to see if they have it?

No, I haven't. Thanks for the information. I'll check there sometime this weekend. Just one question: what was the price?

Gildia wrote: I watched this on demand on FEARnet and loved it. I would've paid to see it in theaters. I've been searching for a copy of this at all the stores where I live (Louisville, KY) and none of them have it. They either don't carry it, have only the DVD, or are sold out. I want to see the unrated cut badly, to see more of the fantastic gore. Seriously, if you are a gorehound like me, you'll love this film. The extras sound disappointing though. At least the commentary sounds good.

Gildia I saw a copy of the DVD and Blu-ray version of Midnight meat train at my local K-Mart. Did you try there to see if they have it?

I watched this on demand on FEARnet and loved it. I would've paid to see it in theaters. I've been searching for a copy of this at all the stores where I live (Louisville, KY) and none of them have it. They either don't carry it, have only the DVD, or are sold out. I want to see the unrated cut badly, to see more of the fantastic gore. Seriously, if you are a gorehound like me, you'll love this film. The extras sound disappointing though. At least the commentary sounds good.

Your mature response is definitely one of the main reasons I like reading your reviews. People can have different viewpoints, but when they can discuss them intelligently and passionately, that's all that matters.

I will check out the unrated version of MMT just to see if it makes a difference for me. I do really like RAW MEAT and was thrilled when MGM put out the disc after years of watching dark/unwatcheable bootlegs.

carniv4: Don't worry about my offense, I took none from your polite disagreement, which is exactly what the talkback is for.

I think that Kitumura's style is pretty far removed from Argento's for sure, but the plot issues are pretty thick. I think the mystery involving the killer's real identity, not just his face, is comparable to the usual giallo villain, if not a bit removed.

I recommend giving the unrated cut a view some day, and a rental of Raw Meat ASAP. it's applicable, and it's a generally good horror film anyway.

Gabe Powers wrote: First off, if you only saw the R-rated version, you really need to give the unrated version a shot.

Concerning my dismissal of Lord of Illusions, this isn't a review of that film, and I'm using short hand to give my instant impression of the film. Frankly I thought my thoughts were the most common reading of the film - boring. It's a long and repetative movie in my eyes with little to redeem the effort. Maybe I'll get a review copy some day and be forced to fully flesh my thoughts.

Concerning comparisons to Argento, I think they're quite obvious, and actually edited a pretty boring comparison paragraph out of my review here. The basic plot of Meat Train, up until the twist becomes apparent (about 2/3rds of the way through) is straight out of the Argento playbook (specifically the 'animal trilogy' and Deep Red). An artistic type (a photographer) is a witness to something he doesn't quite understand, and becomes obsessed with solving a murder, despite the cops warning him against it. He follows the clues despite the killer actively attacking him. His significant other is supportive at first, but then tries to get him to stop the obsession. Later the significant other will put herself in danger trying to help. The big difference is that the killer's physical identity is clear to the audience from the start, even if his motives and history are still a mystery.

Sleepless, The Card Player, and Do You Like Hitchcock are all unsatisfying giallo. I actually wrote a full review of Hitchcock if your curious. The point of name dropping here isn't to piss people off, it's to put my opinions into context for the reader. If I say Argento's giallo have been unsatisfying since Stendhal, the reader can understand where I'm coming from, even if they disagree with me. I shouldn't be required to write 'in my humble opinion' after every opinion I drop, it would read terribly.

Hi Gabe:

Well first off, I never meant to be offensive against your opinions on these films as I have always liked your reviews, and maybe I will check out the unrated version of MMT even though I doubt more violence will improve my opinion of the script and film.

I see where you are going with the Argento comparisons, but I still feel that MMT has none of the style and vibe of the early Argento animal trilogy - and even many mainstream mystery-thrillers contain a lot of these elements so it could be easily compared to any of those. Most mystery-thrillers have someone trying to find out who the killer is and then the girlfriend is in jeopardy at one point and all that. Argento's giallos always had a big question about the killer's identity and that's a huge difference here. Without that, MMT just plays as the usual horror-thriller. It was quite obvious to me at about 30 minutes into MMT where it was going to go, and it finally went there after another excruciating 40 minutes of padding beforehand (but no, I did not guess the final monster stuff, thank God). The final sequence of what happens to our protagonist could be guessed so far earlier that when it does happen, it's absolutely laughable.

If it's any consolation, I wholeheartedly agree with you about "Do You Like Hitchcock" being terrible (although I haven't read your review). I think it's Argento's worst, even moreso than "Phantom". I don't mind reviewer's referring to other movies that may be relevant in their review, but I simply did not see anything to bring up Argento in MMT at all. And that's my personal humble opinion and all that.

carniv4 wrote: I watched this on Fearnet and I thought it was "eh" at best. The ending was so absolutely laughable and ridiculous that the "eh" went down a few notches to 'poor'. I understand that's how the original Barker story ends, but sometimes transition to screen could use a few tweaks or a complete rewrite. I suggest netflixing this instead of a blind buy.

I always like Gabe's reviews, even in cases where I don't agree, but I do have to take issue where another unrelated film/films gets slammed to help justify feelings about the film under review. Was it really necessary to call LORD OF ILLUSIONS a "snore-fest and to slam Argento for not making a satisfying giallo since "STENDHAL". Those may be your feelings, but those films aren't on review here and comparisons to the film at hand are tenuous at best. It just sets up the reader to disagree with you about stuff they're not even reading the review about - and it adds nothing except to express that you feel MMT is better than LORD OF ILLUSIONS. Personally, I think LORD OF ILLUSIONS looks like a masterpiece compared to MMT, and I also think Argento has made some overall satisfying (if not great) giallos since STENDHAL ("Sleepless", the not-so-loved "Card Player", and hopefully the upcoming "Giallo" ) and is kind of an unfair statement since he's done a few horror-oriented projects in that time instead of just giallos ("Mother of Tears", Masters of Horror", "Phantom" ). I also don't really see anything even remotely vintage-Argento giallo about MMT. I wish it was, as then I might like it more. Anyway, comparisons to other films in film reviews happens a lot and may help show where the reviewer's head is at in relation to the film under review, but to swipe an entire film in a one-word throwaway slur is an easy cop-out. In fact, I'd really like to read your full LORD OF ILLUSIONS review to see why it's such a snore-fest.

First off, if you only saw the R-rated version, you really need to give the unrated version a shot.

Concerning my dismissal of Lord of Illusions, this isn't a review of that film, and I'm using short hand to give my instant impression of the film. Frankly I thought my thoughts were the most common reading of the film - boring. It's a long and repetative movie in my eyes with little to redeem the effort. Maybe I'll get a review copy some day and be forced to fully flesh my thoughts.

Concerning comparisons to Argento, I think they're quite obvious, and actually edited a pretty boring comparison paragraph out of my review here. The basic plot of Meat Train, up until the twist becomes apparent (about 2/3rds of the way through) is straight out of the Argento playbook (specifically the 'animal trilogy' and Deep Red). An artistic type (a photographer) is a witness to something he doesn't quite understand, and becomes obsessed with solving a murder, despite the cops warning him against it. He follows the clues despite the killer actively attacking him. His significant other is supportive at first, but then tries to get him to stop the obsession. Later the significant other will put herself in danger trying to help. The big difference is that the killer's physical identity is clear to the audience from the start, even if his motives and history are still a mystery.

Sleepless, The Card Player, and Do You Like Hitchcock are all unsatisfying giallo. I actually wrote a full review of Hitchcock if your curious. The point of name dropping here isn't to piss people off, it's to put my opinions into context for the reader. If I say Argento's giallo have been unsatisfying since Stendhal, the reader can understand where I'm coming from, even if they disagree with me. I shouldn't be required to write 'in my humble opinion' after every opinion I drop, it would read terribly.

I Netflixed this and was very pleased. I wanted to see this ever since it was in theaters *(cough) second run theaters*. While the ending was a weak attempt, I have to say the movie was good. The gore was outrageous, but that's a good thing.

WHAT?! I absolutely loved this movie. I didn't feel cheapened by the horror in ANY WAY. Honestly, one of the best horror movies I've seen in a long time. Completely original story and ending. Everything Kitamura does is simply amazing. You guys are crazy.

I watched this on Fearnet and I thought it was "eh" at best. The ending was so absolutely laughable and ridiculous that the "eh" went down a few notches to 'poor'. I understand that's how the original Barker story ends, but sometimes transition to screen could use a few tweaks or a complete rewrite. I suggest netflixing this instead of a blind buy.

I always like Gabe's reviews, even in cases where I don't agree, but I do have to take issue where another unrelated film/films gets slammed to help justify feelings about the film under review. Was it really necessary to call LORD OF ILLUSIONS a "snore-fest and to slam Argento for not making a satisfying giallo since "STENDHAL". Those may be your feelings, but those films aren't on review here and comparisons to the film at hand are tenuous at best. It just sets up the reader to disagree with you about stuff they're not even reading the review about - and it adds nothing except to express that you feel MMT is better than LORD OF ILLUSIONS. Personally, I think LORD OF ILLUSIONS looks like a masterpiece compared to MMT, and I also think Argento has made some overall satisfying (if not great) giallos since STENDHAL ("Sleepless", the not-so-loved "Card Player", and hopefully the upcoming "Giallo" ) and is kind of an unfair statement since he's done a few horror-oriented projects in that time instead of just giallos ("Mother of Tears", Masters of Horror", "Phantom" ). I also don't really see anything even remotely vintage-Argento giallo about MMT. I wish it was, as then I might like it more. Anyway, comparisons to other films in film reviews happens a lot and may help show where the reviewer's head is at in relation to the film under review, but to swipe an entire film in a one-word throwaway slur is an easy cop-out. In fact, I'd really like to read your full LORD OF ILLUSIONS review to see why it's such a snore-fest.

Ah. I could not agree more, Gabe. I went in with low expectations and had a blast at the only one of two screenings this had here in NYC (midnight screenings, natch). It's not a particularly good movie but it's one I enjoy the heck out of.